nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Continual flame
Server exploit Oddly enough, I have found that some servers will ban this spell as an exploit, since, as stated, this spell increases the price of an item as it adds a permanent item property. -- February 2008 * Yes, it is odd. Especially sinds those people, often role players, are always crying about realism in games. To me, buying and selling for profit seems very realistic. Long live hypocrisy? : : Although, because it adds around 100 gold to the value of the item, I must agree that using this in the single player game is a bit to much. But the fact that on most servers good items often cost literally tens or hundreds of millions of gold, should be reason enough to not see it as a problem. I personally would never even consider taking the time to buy 10 MILLION items and sell these to make enough money to buy a certain item. It would cost me a week, and leave me with a broken mouse and/or sore fingers. If anything, the money gain could even be customized to a lower amount. Actually, many servers do allow making money from crafting, so you could easily make this spell only accesable to crafters. It's all so relative, but people love it more to call this or that an exploit, than to come up with positive solutions without being a hypocrite. : : So, is it really an exploit? Seems to me that this spell clearly was intended as it is, otherwise it would have been surely "fixed". 21:21, May 5, 2013 (UTC) :* It is not my intent to prolong this discussion, but I would like to point out that the above generalization – that people who see this as an exploit are also those that cry about realism – is either false or grossly out of context, according to my experience. First of all, I have often seen this called an exploit by people who care nothing about "realism" in a fantasy game; they are only concerned about game balance (for power gamers, usually). Secondly, many – if not most – of the people I have seen declaring this not an exploit do so on the grounds of "realism". Finally, of the people who both support "realsim" and call this an exploit, almost all (whose arguments I know about) support their position by proposing that the cost of light-emitting items would plunge if characters were often selling items upon which continual flame had been cast. Since this sort of supply-and-demand dynamic is at best tricky to implement, blocking the cause is seen as the best available option. Far from hypocrisy, this is a compromise based upon limitations of the game engine, the least distasteful of the available options. :: At least that is what I have seen. Since some people read these discussion pages and assume all the information in them is correct (very bad assumption – discussion pages are not edited for accuracy), I thought pointing out some misstatements might be warranted this time. Particularly since having 217.121.86.187 reply to a five-year-old comment indicates that people are reading this discussion page. --The Krit (talk) 17:22, June 9, 2013 (UTC) Stealth Has anyone verified that the light from this spell does not affect stealth? I see no technical reason why it wouldn't. --The Krit 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)